1)

(a)Rebbi learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ve'chiper alav ha'Kohen al Shig'gaso asher Shagag" that - only someone whose entire Chiyuv consists of Shig'gas Ma'aseh is subject to an Asham Taluy ('Mi she'*Kol* Chet'o bi'Shegagah'), but not a Kohen Gadol, who sometimes requires He'elam Davar as well.

(b)We refute the Kashya that the Torah did not write 'Kol Chet'o bi'Shegagah' - by pointing out that the next words "asher Shagag" are superfluous, and it is as if the Torah had written "Kol Chet'o bi'Shegagah".

2)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that Beis-Din are Chayav to bring a Par He'elam Davar only if they permitted a Mitzvah which is 'Zedono Kareis ve'Shig'gaso Chatas' - and that the same applies to ...

1. ... a Kohen Gadol.

2. ... Beis-Din who permitted Avodah-Zarah.

3)

(a)Rebbi in a Beraisa, learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Alehah ("Venod'ah ha'Chatas asher Chat'u Alehah" in Vayikra [in connection with Par He'elam Davar]) "Alehah" ("Legalos Ervasah Alehah" [in Acharei-Mos, in connection with Nidah]) that - Beis-Din are only Chayav to bring a Par He'elam Davar if they permitted something which, like Nidah, is 'Zedono Kareis ve'Shig'gaso Chatas'.

(b)He learns that the same applies to a Kohen Gadol - from the Pasuk "le'Ashmas ha'Am".

(c)From the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mitzvos" ("Ve'asah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m" [in connection with a Nasi who sinned]) "Mitzvos" ("Ve'asu Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m" [in connection with a Tzibur]) he learns - that the same applies to a Nasi who sinned ...

(d)... and from "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta ... " that - the same applies to a Yachid.

4)

(a)Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "me'Einei" "me'Einei" that - Beis-Din who permit Avodah-Zarah are only Chayav to bring a Par le'Olah and a Sa'ir le'Chatas if they permitted something that is subject to Kareis be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg (just like other Mitzvos).

(b)This comes to preclude - things like kissing and hugging an idol, which constitute a La'av but not Kareis.

5)

(a)Rebbi learns this with regard to ...

1. ... a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol - from "Nefesh Achas" (by other Mitzvos), and ...

2. ... a Yachid - from a Nasi (who precedes it in the Pasuk [see Tosfos DH 'Veyilmod').

(b)The problem according to the Rabbanan, who need "Alehah" for another D'rashah (Arayos and Tzaros) is that - we will need to find a new source for Rebbi's D'rashah.

(c)We answer that they learn it from a D'rashah of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who told his son that - the Torah juxtaposes the two Pesukim (in connection with Avodah-Zarah) "Torah Achas Yih'yeh lachem la'Oseh bi'Shegagah ... ve'ha'Nefesh asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah", to compare the entire Torah to Avodah-Zarah, for which one is Chayav Kareis be'Meizid and a Chatas be'Shogeg (so too, is a Yachid only Chayav a Chatas under those circumstances).

(d)And when he said to him 'Ve'yilmod Elyon mi'Tachton', he meant that - we will the Tzibur from a Yachid.

6)

(a)Rebbi explains the Pasuk "Torah Achas Yih'yeh lachem" like the Beraisa. An individual that worships Avodah-Zarah is subject to Sekilah (stoning), whereas aTzibur is only subject to Sayaf (death by the sword). The other difference between them is - that the property of the latter is burned, whereas that of the former is not.

(b)Rebbi therefore learns from "Torah Achas Yih'yeh lachem" - that be'Shogeg, they both bring the same Korban.

(c)Rav Chilkiyah from Hagrunya has a problem however, in working out what Rebbi thinks an Ir ha'Nidachas be'Shogeg might otherwise have brought. He could not have meant that they might have brought ...

1. ... just a Par - since that is the Korban brought by the Tzibur by other Mitzvos.

2. ... a Par le'Olah and a Sa'ir le'Chatas - which is the Korban that the Tzibur brings by Avodah-Zarah.

3. ... a Sa'ir - which is the Korban that a Nasi brings by other Mitzvos.

4. ... a Se'irah - since this is the Korban that a Yachid brings by other Mitzvos.

(d)So (besides the possibility that they would have brought a Par le'Chatas and a Sa'ir le'Olah) we suggest that Rebbi might have meant that - although they ought really to bring a Korban, this is practically impossible (so in fact, they bring nothing).

7)

(a)The problem with establishing the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha by Avodah-Zarah is that - the Torah does not mention Avodah-Zarah there.

(b)We solve it by citing Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (or Kadi), who extrapolates that the Pasuk must be speaking about Avodah-Zarah from the Pasuk " Ve'chi Sishgu ve'Lo Sa'asu es Kol ha'Mitzvos ha'Eileh" - since Avodah-Zarah is the Mitzvah that is compared to the entire Torah.

(c)de'bei Rebbi learns it from the Pesukim there "Asher Diber Hash-m el Moshe" and "Asher Tzivah Hash-m aleichem be'Yad Moshe" - implying a Mitzvah that was commanded directly by Hash-m, but explained elsewhere by Moshe, and, as Tana de'bei Yishmael has taught us, the only two Mitzvos that we heard from Hash-m directly were "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh l'cha") (both in connection with Avodah-Zarah.

(d)We reject the explanation of de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens from the Pasuk there "le'Min ha'Yom asher Tzivah Hash-m ve'Hal'ah le'Doroseichem", that it must be speaking about Avodah-Zarah, because it was the first Mitzvah that Hash-m commanded Yisrael - inasmuchy as Yisrael were already commanded ten Mitzvos at Marah, which preceded Sinai, as Mar taught us.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah exempts Beis-Din from a Korban on the Asei and Lo Sa'aseh - "Viyeshalchu min ha'Machanaeh Kol Tzaru'a ... " and "ve'Lo Yetam'u es Machaneihem" (Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav), with regard to entering the Beis-Hamikdash be'Tum'ah

(b)They are Patur - because their Chiyuv is confined to a La'av for which one brings a fixed Chatas (but does not extend to one that requires a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(c)Yechidim too, are Patur - since they are Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy and not a Chatas Kavu'a.

(d)The current exemption incorporates both a Nasi, which will be discussed in the next Mishnah - and a Kohen Gadol, which will be discussed later in a Beraisa.

9)

(a)The Tana goes on to state that - Beis-Din are however Chayav for an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh she'be'Nidah'.

(b)The Lo Sa'aseh is - "ve'el Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav".

(c)The Asei is "Ve'hizartem es B'nei Yisrael" - a warning to to separate from one's wife during the Onah (twelve-hour period) prior to the time when the Nidus is expected to occur.

10)

(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi learns from the double 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta bi'Shegagah ... Ve'ashem", "ve'Ashem (in connection with an Asham Taluy) and "ve'Asheimu" (all in Vayikra) - that just as "Ve'ashem" by a Chatas Yachid speaks about a Chatas Kavu'ah, so too, does "ve'Asheimu" of the Par He'elam Davar of the Tzibur and the "Ve'ashem" of the Asham Taluy of the Yachid.

(b)Initially, we decline to incorporate the Korban Oleh ve'Yored (where the Torah writes ''Vehayah ki Ye'esham le'Achas me'Eileh") in the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because we cannot compare "Ye'esham" to "Ve'ashem" and "Ve'asheimu".

(c)We query this however, by citing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says 'Zu Hi Shivah Zu Hi Bi'ah' - meaning that when the Torah writes in Metzora "Ve'shav ha'Kohen" (in connection with Tzara'as Batim), it does not mean that the Kohen has to go home and return to inspect the stricken house, but that he goes straight to the house (as if it had written "U'va ha'Kohen"). In other words, we do compare words that are similar in meaning, even though they are not exactly the same.

(d)Rav Papa counters this Kashya, as well as the observation that the Torah also writes "Ve'ashem" in connection with Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav - by changing the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (from Tzibur to Asham Taluy of a Yachid) to "Ve'ashem" plus "Mitzvos Hash-m" (which is written by both).

11)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi queries Rav Papa however, by asking why we should not rather then learn Asham Taluy with a Gezeirah-Shavah from "Ve'ashem" and Nesi'as Avon - from Korban Olah ve'Yored ...

(b)... in which case the Gezeirah-Shavah would teach us that - the Asham Taluy does apply by Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally learns the Gezeirah-Shavah of Asham Taluy from "ve'Ashem" and "Mitzvos Hash-m asher Lo Se'asenah" - from Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur (which only applies in the case of a Chatas Kavu'ah, as we have already learned).

(d)When he concludes ve'Al Yochi'ach Shemi'as Kol, u'Bituy Sefasayim ve'Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav - he is referring to the Korban Oleh ve'Yored, which is brought for these three sins ...

(e)... and in connection with which the Torah does not write "ve'Ashem" and "Mitzvos Hash-m asher Lo Se'asenah".

12)

(a)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa adds a Nasi - a king, to the current list (of those who are only Chayav a Korban for permitting a Chiyuv Kareis if it is Chayav a Chatas Kavu'a be'Shogeg).

(b)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - by Shevu'as Bituy and Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav.

(c)Bearing in mind that we are speaking about a Nasi, he considers Shemi'as Kol different than the two other cases - because a king can neither judge (as a member of Beis-Din), nor can he be judged (although this point really refers to the Seifa of the Mishnah, which disqualifies him from testifying, too).

(d)And he says nothing about a Kohen Gadol in the Mishnah, though we will see in a Beraisa that he exempts him from all the cases mentioned in the Mishnah.

13)

(a)Ula explains the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "Vehayah ki Ye'esham le'Achas me'Eileh", according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili to mean that - whoever is not Chayav even one of the three cases of Korban Oleh ve'Yored, is not subject to the other two either. Consequently, since a Yachid by Shig'gas Hora'ah is not Chayav Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav, he is not subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(b)We refute this explanation however, in that one can explain the Pasuk to mean that - even if only one of the three cases applies to a particular person, then he is subject at least to that one.

(c)So we equate Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's reason with a statement by Rebbi Yirmiyah in a Beraisa, who learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sasig Yado" that - whoever is not subject to poverty (a Nasi or a Kohen Gadol), is not subject to a Korban Oleh Veyored, either.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah learns from ...

1. ... the words "Hash-m Elokav" (in the Pasuk [in connection with a Nasi] "Ve'asah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m Elokav"]) that - 'Nasi' means (not a president or a prince, but) a king, who has no superior over him other than Hash-m (and a king is always wealthy).

2. ... "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" that - a Kohen Gadol must be greater than all the other Kohanim, incorporating the attributes of looks and strength - wisdom and wealth.

(b)Rebbi Meir learns from "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" that - if the Kohen Gadol is not exceptionally wealthy, then the other Kohanim are obligated to make sure that he is.